Paper report 1

Paper

A. Blum and M. Furst. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelligence, pages 1636-1642, August 1995.

Report

The paper proposed a mechanism for solving planning problem using a compact structure called planning graph. The planner Graphplan used in this paradigm can always return the shortest plan or answers no plan existed for any planning problem. Moreover, it can also solve partial ordering planning problems. With the great power of having high performance and guarantee soundness and completeness, Graphplan beat many well-known planners in the world.

 

Planning problems can be described of using planner to finding a sequence of actions from an initial state to achieve a target goal. Since real world planning problems can be encoded into representations that computer can understand and handle, designing a high performance planner is crucial in many real applications. The mechanism the paper proposed can be described as follows. First, it will construct a data structure called planning graph which was composed of many stages expending level by level, while each stage is composed of propositional level and action level. Second, it will add constraints (mutual exclusion) on each level, including inconsistent effects, interference, competing needs and inconsistent support. It means that if a solution returned by Graphplan, then all actions can not obey the constraints defined in this scheme. Third, it will expand the graph level by level until our goal appears, and it will use backtracking to see whether or not a valid plan exists. Finally, if no valid plan exists in this stage, it will continue to expand the graph until leveled-off. If the graph is leveled-off and some literals of the goal do not appear or are marked as mutex in the latest proposition level, the problem is unsolvable. The proposed planner only required polynomial time and space to run its algorithm and is sound and complete. From the view of experimental results, it shows that Graphplan outperforms many total-order and partial-order planners in many well-known AI planning problems. The question I was pondering about is that why literals and actions will increase monotonically and mutexes will decrease monotonically in the planning graph, and eventually level off. Moreover, if we add time factor into the planning problem, I don’t know whether or not the planner can guarantee that running this algorithm is sound and complete.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s